Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Pretty arrogant to think that you, a non-scientist, who doesn't even know what this stuff is called, can mockingly discredit several thousand experts.name them...several thousand...just go with a million..it's much more convincing, I didn't mock or discredit them, their actions and the facts have done that....
But you could be right in the end. After all, Rush Limbaugh did observe it was colder than usual the other day.
-spence
|
when the "scientists" finally decide on a name for "this stuff" that they can settle on with their "settled science"...you'll please let me know, won't ya Spence?
did you think it was arrogant that, Obama, a "non-scientist" thought he could lower the sea levels?
How about them Nobel "Scientists"?
The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel's assessment of Himalayan glaciers.
Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035.
But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.
“I know a lot of climate sceptics are after my blood, but I’m in no mood to oblige them,” he told The Times in an interview. “It was a collective failure by a number of people,” he said. “I need to consider what action to take, but that will take several weeks. It’s best to think with a cool head, rather than shoot from the hip.”
Related Links
UN climate chief admits mistake on glaciers alert
World misled over glacier meltdown
The IPCC’s 2007 report, which won it the Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers “disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high”.
But it emerged last week that the forecast was based not on a consensus among climate change experts, but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.
The IPCC admitted on Thursday that the prediction was “poorly substantiated” in the latest of a series of blows to the panel’s credibility.